Jackson v. State

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court held that through persistent filing of nonmeritorious requests for relief, Mark Jackson had abused the judicial process and, accordingly, directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings, documents, or other requests for relief submitted by Jackson unless such filings were signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.

Jackson - a pro se litigant - filed a petition to invoke the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction. The Court denied Jackson's petition but expressly reserved jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against him. While the case was pending, Jackson filed several motions that were frivolous, without merit, or sought relief previously denied. The Supreme Court concluded that a sanction was necessary because, if not restrained, Jackson would continue to burden the Court with frivolous and meritless filings.

Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC18-1531 ____________ MARK C. JACKSON, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Respondents. June 13, 2019 PER CURIAM. Mark C. Jackson—a pro se litigant—filed a petition to invoke this Court’s discretionary jurisdiction. By order dated April 11, 2019, we denied Jackson’s petition but expressly reserved jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against him. Jackson v. State, No. SC18-1531, 2019 WL 1575238 (Fla. Apr. 11, 2019); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). While his case was pending in this Court, Jackson filed a litany of motions that were frivolous, devoid of merit, or sought relief previously denied in case numbers SC12-367 and SC17-1628. Because of his filing history, Jackson was ordered to show cause why he should not be prohibited from submitting further pro se documents in this Court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (requiring that a litigant be provided notice and an opportunity to respond before sanctions are imposed). Jackson has now filed a response to the Court’s order. We conclude that Jackson has failed to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Through his persistent filing of nonmeritorious requests for relief, Jackson has abused the judicial process. Jackson’s response neglected to provide any justification for this abuse or to express remorse for his repeated misuse of the Court’s resources. We are therefore convinced that, if not restrained, Jackson will continue to burden this Court with frivolous and meritless filings, diverting finite judicial resources from other litigants. See Pettway v. McNeil, 987 So. 2d 20, 22 (Fla. 2008). Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, letters, or other requests for relief submitted by Mark C. Jackson, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.1 Counsel may file on Jackson’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceeding may have merit and can be brought in good faith. 1. In recent years, we have imposed comparable sanctions on other pro se litigants who have exhibited their disregard for abusing the scarce judicial resources of this Court. See, e.g., Wetzel v. Travelers Cos., Inc., 267 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 2019); Shirah v. State, 257 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2018); Woodson v. State, 242 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 2018); Rivas v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 239 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2018). -2- No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by the Court. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Constitutional Construction First District - Case No. 1D18-242 (Bradford County) Mark C. Jackson, pro se, Starke, Florida, for Petitioner No appearance for Respondent -3-
Primary Holding

The Supreme Court held that through persistent filing of non meritorious requests for relief, Mark Jackson had abused the judicial process and directed the Clerk of Court to reject any future pleadings, documents, or other requests for relief submitted by Jackson unless such filings were signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.